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

[ohnri]

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.

Agree with you. I was merely putting up some quick examples of the limitations of computer modeling. My point was that PP is not necessarily able to produce any effect at all and that certain effects that are possible would be prohibitively expensive in time or other resources.

The idea being that grabbing a certain lens, for instance, may immediately give an effect that would take enormous effort to delicate.

-Bill

 

[f64]

For me, it's a lack of subtlety or a lot of unnaturalness.
As the resolution increases and lenses become more perfect and inevitably all the same, my feeling is that photos tend to look like computer renditions. Beautiful perhaps, but lifeless. It depends on the subject, of course.

 

[mjr]

Sorry to keep posting images but I feel there's a point to it, sort of!

This is shot with a Zeiss 135 f2 on a D800, I often read how clinical this lens is but shoot in the right conditions and it's beautiful, soft but sharp, let it flare slightly and overall I like what it produces. Shoot it under strobes in the studio and you can see every pore but that's the choice of the photographer.



This portrait is the same 180mm lens as above garden shots, I can increase contrast slightly, reduce saturation a touch and I have masses of detail and a 'hard" portrait. In both of these shots I'm controlling the light, position and subject to make what I want from the shot. Obviously I have to work within what the sensor and lens combination give me but I honestly feel I have control to a large extent rather than the lens being regarded as clinical, having character or anything in between. Could be wrong though, wouldn't be the first time!

 

[ohnri]

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.

I did not suggest which lens offers more or fewer possibilities.

If I use a lens that has strong 'character ' then it is because I have made an artistic choice to do so. That is the essence of being an artist, along with technical command of ones tools.

The last thing I would want to do with a 'character' lens is wipe out it's unique qualities. But, I often use PP to then build on that base image and achieve a final image that I visualize.

Trying to imitate the qualities of every possible lens by starting with a so-called clinical lens is neither possible nor, for me, desirable to attempt.

Handing me a lens and telling me it has numerically greater processing options may put me much further from the image I want than handing me a lens and saying it does a smash up job on the two or three things I really do want.

In other words, I am not prioritizing flexibility. I am prioritizing getting to the end point I desire.

-Bill

 

[synn]

Sorry to keep posting images but I feel there's a point to it, sort of!

This is shot with a Zeiss 135 f2 on a D800, I often read how clinical this lens is but shoot in the right conditions and it's beautiful, soft but sharp, let it flare slightly and overall I like what it produces. Shoot it under strobes in the studio and you can see every pore but that's the choice of the photographer.



This portrait is the same 180mm lens as above garden shots, I can increase contrast slightly, reduce saturation a touch and I have masses of detail and a 'hard" portrait. In both of these shots I'm controlling the light, position and subject to make what I want from the shot. Obviously I have to work within what the sensor and lens combination give me but I honestly feel I have control to a large extent rather than the lens being regarded as clinical, having character or anything in between. Could be wrong though, wouldn't be the first time!

Great images, Mat. Thanks for sharing.

I was talking about a related topic elsewhere. I quite like the old Zeiss ZF.2 50 f/1.4 for its rendering. It is nowhere as sharp as modern day 50s and DXO probably has rated it in the third page of rankings (Don't know, don't care), but the way it transitions from in focus to out of focus areas is amazing.

I'd pick this over some MTF record setter any day.

 

[Annna T]

Personally I would ban all those words : clinical, analytical, surgical. They are all very pejoratively connoted. For a good example of this read Ulysses Bowman who wrote that clinical lenses show an "utterly boring perfection".

I prefer to speak of the neutrality and the directness of a lens (from Turtle's interesting analysis above).

I have to recognize that I tend to like boring pictures, like those of Gabriele Basilico, or some of the 'new landscapists' (aka photographers interested by unremarkable places).

 

[ohnri]

Sorry to keep posting images but I feel there's a point to it, sort of!

This is shot with a Zeiss 135 f2 on a D800, I often read how clinical this lens is but shoot in the right conditions and it's beautiful, soft but sharp, let it flare slightly and overall I like what it produces. Shoot it under strobes in the studio and you can see every pore but that's the choice of the photographer.



This portrait is the same 180mm lens as above garden shots, I can increase contrast slightly, reduce saturation a touch and I have masses of detail and a 'hard" portrait. In both of these shots I'm controlling the light, position and subject to make what I want from the shot. Obviously I have to work within what the sensor and lens combination give me but I honestly feel I have control to a large extent rather than the lens being regarded as clinical, having character or anything in between. Could be wrong though, wouldn't be the first time!

Nice portraits.

I like the way you exploited the character of the Zeiss 135/2 in the first image to get the effect you wanted.

A lovely example of knowing how to use your tools, the lens being among the most important, to achieve your desired result.

Character, Smaracter, I just want the result I want. Some lenses get me there and others don't.

-Bill

 

[Vivek]

I'd pick this over some MTF record setter any day.

Loxia 50/2. Same stuff but smaller and in the right mount. :grin:

 

[mjr]

Nice portraits.

I like the way you exploited the character of the Zeiss 135/2 in the first image to get the effect you wanted.

A lovely example of knowing how to use your tools, the lens being among the most important, to achieve your desired result.

Character, Smaracter, I just want the result I want. Some lenses get me there and others don't.

-Bill

I think you hit on an interesting point here Bill, knowing your equipment is key in my opinion, it's why I never read reviews from people who have had a camera or lens for an afternoon and looking to be the first to get a review out, they mean nothing! I'm probably slow but it can take a month or more for me to understand how to get the best from a piece of equipment, a lens handles differently in lots of situations, there's no way around it, we need to know as much about how they work as possible to get the most from them.

Sorry, bit off topic there.

Mat

 

[JaapD]

I often describe these kind of lenses being "too analytical".

What the $%&^ Does "Lens is Too Clinical" Mean?
For me: dead ugly (read: very unnatural) bokeh! By far an ideal lens.

 

[ohnri]

Loxia 50/2. Same stuff but smaller and in the right mount. :grin:

Do you feel the bokeh is similar between the Loxia 50/2 and the Zeiss 50/1.4 ZF.2?

As the ZF.2 is cheaper and one stop faster would you consider it or does the automatic focus engagement, size and exif data make the Loxia the obvious choice?

Thanks,

Bill

 

[Vivek]

Milvus for F mount: http://lenspire.zeiss.com/en/zeiss-milvus-50mm-f1-4-and-85mm-f1-4-anchor-a-gorgeous-new-lens-line/

Check out the boket (front and back) at f/8! Absolutely gorgeous!

The E mount cam is better off with the Loxia.

Are we talking about rendering or price? If price is an issue, I would strongly suggest something in M42 mount.

 

[algrove]

:ROTFL:

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?.

OK, here goes:

Like a hospital, without the smell!:grin: Come to think more about my comment, some might say a lens stinks!:ROTFL:

 

[ohnri]

Milvus for F mount: http://lenspire.zeiss.com/en/zeiss-milvus-50mm-f1-4-and-85mm-f1-4-anchor-a-gorgeous-new-lens-line/

Check out the boket (front and back) at f/8! Absolutely gorgeous!

The E mount cam is better off with the Loxia.

Are we talking about rendering or price? If price is an issue, I would strongly suggest something in M42 mount.

Price aside, would you prefer the Milvus 50 or the Loxia 50 for the A7r2?

-Bill

 

[k-hawinkler]

Thanks for your excellent contributions.
I am trying to sort through these and separate the wheat from the chaff.
Also, if we could just ignore for the moment our personal preferences and focus on defining the term "clinical".
I don't particularly like this word, but so be it. Maybe we can find a better word later or find it's not needed at all.
A friend, reading through this thread, thought that the poster who defined

"clinical" as "lack of uncorrected spherical aberrations"

got it right. Could it be as simple as this? Your feedback please. TIA.

 

[Vivek]

Price aside, would you prefer the Milvus 50 or the Loxia 50 for the A7r2?

-Bill

Bill, I would prefer the 50/2 for various reasons and not in the context of this thread.

 

[Guy Mancuso]

Yes I think that was what I was saying way back in the beginning. Basically a lens with correct aberrations that is more detailed wide open than a uncorrected lens.

As far as personal preferences go that's a different subject all together. Nice to hear but it muddies the waters . We got a little off topic as far as the definition . Which we always tend to do and that's fine. We could even expand the definition to include typically a clinical lens is very sharp and has less falloff of OOF areas.

I still don't refer it in my mind as a bad thing it's just the way a lens draws or its character. I like having both in my bag or in many cases a 1.4 lens has more character wide open but when stopped down is more clinical in look. Many 1.4 lenses are like that our Sony 35 1.4 for instance

 

[hiepphotog]

Thanks for your excellent contributions.
I am trying to sort through these and separate the wheat from the chaff.
Also, if we could just ignore for the moment our personal preferences and focus on defining the term "clinical".
I don't particularly like this word, but so be it. Maybe we can find a better word later or find it's not needed at all.
A friend, reading through this thread, thought that the poster who defined

"clinical" as "lack of uncorrected spherical aberrations"

got it right. Could it be as simple as this? Your feedback please. TIA.

I'm not sure. The Cron 50 APO's spherical aberrations (SA) is intentionally slightly under-corrected, and it's often associated as a "clinical" lens. How do I know it has some SA? Simply taking an astro shot and looking at the corner at WO, there is noticeable bat-wing which is mainly caused by SA.

However, most of the beloved character lenses (like Mandler) have more SA (veiling haze) than most. Their global contrast is moderate as well. Micro-contrast (5 to 10 lpmm on the MTF charts) should be relative high to help the subject standing out from the background. I think moderate resolution (30 to 40 lpmm on the MTF charts) is expected to go with the veiling haze. Drop-off in contrast/resolution from the outer third (either due to field curvature or simply a drop in contrast) is a must for most of these beloved lenses to create somewhat lower contrast in the background with diffused blur.

Again, I doubt that anyone would speak highly of the lens I used for the fence shot (at least for people photography), even though they would not classify it as a "clinical" lens either.

So from that, I still stand by my definition: clinical lens = flat field curvature + good to excellent sharpness + good to excellent aberrations control. It's the combination of a clean look (from sharpness and aberrations control) and the somewhat neutral bokeh (flat field curvature) that would lead to such conclusion. And most only talk about magical property of a lens at WO. As you stop it down, some of that magics diminish. Though, ironically, Leica's King of Bokeh needs to be stopped down a stop to get its famed smooth bokeh profile.

 

[k-hawinkler]

I would not read into folks comments on clinical either it's not a bad thing. It's just a way a lens draws. I like having a few lenses that are actually. To me it's about smoothness of tonal areas or less glowing, veiling kind of look which is caused really by a imperfect lens and aberrations. A clinical lens maybe a good description is a lens that's techinically correct that does not have that veiling or glowing look and sometimes the transition areas are more detailed than a none clinical lens. In Leica almost ever sumilux in R mount was a Mandler design and at 1.4 it has that glow and is not considered clinical at all but more with defects in the lens. I just bought the 55 1.8 comes Monday but I had this lens already. Now it's a brilliant lens and would be considered clinical because it's so well corrected but I use the description a little clinical because it does have a very nice look to it and the transition areas are smoother than let's say some other highly corrected lenses but for me on either side of the 55 I have the 35 1.4 and Batis 85 so having the 55 is actually a good thing being a little clinical over the other two. So if I need the highest detail I'll grap that 55.

I agree though Annna some folks use the word clinical in not the best way. Just tossing that word around and viewing it as a bad thing. Quite the opposite it's a good thing and IMHO we should all have at least one in our bag that is.

Here is what Guy posted. It seems to me Guy nailed it. Thank you, Guy!

 

[Guy Mancuso]

Thanks.