The GetDPI Photography Forum

Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!

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

dandrewk

New member
I've seen this criticism(?) in many posts and in many forums regarding lens IQ.

What does this mean? Can anyone explain it? If a lens isn't sharp, doesn't render well, has soft corners or ugly bokeh... THAT I can understand. When someone says "clinical"... does this mean it's TOO perfect? It doesn't have the tiny, unquanitfiable flaws that lesser (better) lenses have?

What's a lens designer/manufacturers to do? Purposely muck up something in the lens so it isn't judged perfect? If I was a designer, this sort of comment would drive me bonkers.

My take - Nobody knows, so they keep repeating the term because they've heard it elsewhere. Perhaps it's a subconscious thing, the images aren't quite as attention grabbing as we'd anticipated. Maybe better PP would help, perhaps some selective blurring or saturation? Too flat? Add some vibrance.

Maybe longtime photographers are used to tiny flaws that (they assume) gives a lens "character". When presented with a sharp lens with great micro-contrast, it looks objectionable. Me, I'd much rather start with "perfect" and then have the latitude to later spice it up as the image warrants.

When I hear that about a lens I am using, I want to say "Ok, I'll spray a tiny bit of WD40 on the front element. Will that help?"
 
V

Vivek

Guest
Sony FE 55/1.8 (new sample, no grease on it!) on Sony A7s, f/2.2, earlier today.

Untitled by Vivek Iyer, on Flickr

The performance is strikingly similar to that of Leica M Apo Summicron 75/2 (incidentally it was widely criticized by old Leica reviewers during the film era for having "harsh" boket).

I like it. :)
 

rhern213

New member
I think it's a term Canikon fanboys made up after they found E-mount lenses were better than theirs, and they have no other evidence to criticize them.
 

jfirneno

Member
I've seen this criticism(?) in many posts and in many forums regarding lens IQ.

What does this mean? Can anyone explain it? If a lens isn't sharp, doesn't render well, has soft corners or ugly bokeh... THAT I can understand. When someone says "clinical"... does this mean it's TOO perfect? It doesn't have the tiny, unquanitfiable flaws that lesser (better) lenses have?

What's a lens designer/manufacturers to do? Purposely muck up something in the lens so it isn't judged perfect? If I was a designer, this sort of comment would drive me bonkers.

My take - Nobody knows, so they keep repeating the term because they've heard it elsewhere. Perhaps it's a subconscious thing, the images aren't quite as attention grabbing as we'd anticipated. Maybe better PP would help, perhaps some selective blurring or saturation? Too flat? Add some vibrance.

Maybe longtime photographers are used to tiny flaws that (they assume) gives a lens "character". When presented with a sharp lens with great micro-contrast, it looks objectionable. Me, I'd much rather start with "perfect" and then have the latitude to later spice it up as the image warrants.

When I hear that about a lens I am using, I want to say "Ok, I'll spray a tiny bit of WD40 on the front element. Will that help?"
Andrew:
I guess the good thing about the A7 cameras is that the short registration distance allows you to compare all different old and new lenses on the same sensor. If someone really wants to show the difference between clinical and "full of character" he can simply take identical photos with both and post them as an example. That would be the best way for someone to explain clinicality. At least that's how it seems to me.
 
Last edited:
"Maybe longtime photographers are used to tiny flaws that (they assume) gives a lens "character". When presented with a sharp lens with great micro-contrast, it looks objectionable."

That's it, you hit the nail on the head and no further explanation is really necessary. Not every painter thinks the brush that can paint the most exacting details is the best brush to use.

Besides bad bokeh, which you mentioned – high resolution and high contrast at the expense of smoothness in OOF transitions – two other lens features might call down a Clinical Curse:

-- Pore and nose-hair micro-contrast and resolution: Max resolution that reveals every pore may be appropriate to cosmetic ads, but it tends to attract attention to the 2D surface of the subject/object. Some older lenses, for example the Leica M and R lenses designed by Walter Mandler of Leitz Canada, were designed to trade off some resolution for more continuity between in-focus and OOF areas, creating a more rounded or more 3D effect. Mandler thought his 75mm Summilux did this best of all. Classic Zeiss lenses are (or were) also deeply respected for this.

--Macro-contrast: In his lens reviews, Sean Reid has pointed out (and illustrated with histograms) that some lenses are so perfectly contrasty that it's harder to record the richest highlight and shadow detail with them. He occasionally mentions that a lens is 'not a good sunny-day lens' on this account. One of his examples, if I remember correctly, is the current 28mm Elmarit, which lots of folks love for its resolution and contrast; but others prefer the Summilux because it seems 'gentler' with regard to highlight and shadow detail.

One might alternately think of preferring lower contrast as 'preferring flare,' just as one might think of preferring gentler bokeh as 'preferring spherical aberration.' These are, I believe, matters of taste; the effects have to blend in with the whole style of the photographer, the project, or the image.

I have some nice modern aspherical lenses that I enjoy using. But you'll have to pry my Mandler lenses, my Sonnars, my Bokeh King, and my classic Distagons from dying hands.

Kirk

PS, for an example that some will love and others might even laugh at, consider the paper slipcover of HC-B's Modern Century. This was presumably taken before he married his Summicron. It might be either a Summarit, or the Zeiss equivalent that many photographers preferred in those years. Many images in The Americans illustrate the same point about lenses. Most people would say lenses are a lot better now. (For some things?)
 
Last edited:

dandrewk

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

I think it's a term Canikon fanboys made up after they found E-mount lenses were better than theirs, and they have no other evidence to criticize them.
While I've seen plenty of Canikon users making up reasons to blast Sony, the "clinical" term is used by many, including confirmed Sonyi^&s :)D). It usually is applied to the FE55 and/or FE90.

- - - Updated - - -

Andrew:
I guess the good thing about the A7 cameras is that the short registration distance allows you to compare all different old and new lenses on the same sensor. If someone really wants to show the difference between clinical and "full of character" he can simply take identical photos with both and post them as a example. That would be the best way for someone to explain clinicality. At least that's how it seems to me.
I'd love to see such comparisons. Haven't come across any.
 

iiiNelson

Well-known member
I've seen this criticism(?) in many posts and in many forums regarding lens IQ.

What does this mean? Can anyone explain it? If a lens isn't sharp, doesn't render well, has soft corners or ugly bokeh... THAT I can understand. When someone says "clinical"... does this mean it's TOO perfect? It doesn't have the tiny, unquanitfiable flaws that lesser (better) lenses have?

What's a lens designer/manufacturers to do? Purposely muck up something in the lens so it isn't judged perfect? If I was a designer, this sort of comment would drive me bonkers.

My take - Nobody knows, so they keep repeating the term because they've heard it elsewhere. Perhaps it's a subconscious thing, the images aren't quite as attention grabbing as we'd anticipated. Maybe better PP would help, perhaps some selective blurring or saturation? Too flat? Add some vibrance.

Maybe longtime photographers are used to tiny flaws that (they assume) gives a lens "character". When presented with a sharp lens with great micro-contrast, it looks objectionable. Me, I'd much rather start with "perfect" and then have the latitude to later spice it up as the image warrants.

When I hear that about a lens I am using, I want to say "Ok, I'll spray a tiny bit of WD40 on the front element. Will that help?"
I think many refer to clinical lens the same way people refer to sensors that produce flat tonal response with regard to increased DR. In short I think many use this term to describe a "neutral" initial result where there is extreme sharpness and detail even to the point where it's undesired in many applications like portraits of an elderly woman where every wrinkle is present. People tend to have to soften these aspects of the lens' character.

I often have many lenses in my favorite focal lengths for multiple purposes such as multiple 35's or 50's. No lens is perfect for everything but many come close.
 

Slingers

Active member
I think the 55 is a fantastic lens.

I also think it's clinical. For me it's the combination of bokeh and the focal length. While the bokeh is the main reason i feel that way about the lens I don't have the same thoughts when it's used on an apsc camera as a 85 equivalent. On a crop camera the distance of the subject creates better bokeh for me. I have to point out though I am a big fan of the planar bokeh and sometimes don't like what my 50 Summicron produces either for the same reasons.

To me it's not a criticism of the lens but an explanation of its bokeh.
 

k-hawinkler

Well-known member
The term I often run across is not "Clinical" but "Too Clinical", particularly in Leica forums.
Typically in the same sentence is expressed a preference for Mandler designed lenses.
It seems to me to be a matter of taste. No problem, I like both kinds, but for different purposes.
Why not! :grin:
 

philip_pj

New member
A topic well worth discussing. I'll start with the observation by Zeiss that they aim for perfection and provide advice to cinematographers (their principal arena of development) to use 'flare kits' etc to obtain certain imperfections they may want to convey. -;) Especially on their amazing ARRI/ZEISS Master Anamorphics, which you see in action almost every time you see a Hollywood blockbuster.
 

algrove

Well-known member
If you have a lens that gives "character" for some uses and then another that is more "clinical" than the first, I can understand. I have and do own such doubles. However, IMHO, with the advent of sophisticated software one can easily soften a "clinical" lens image, but not, when needed, easily sharpen a "character" lens image.
 

Annna T

Active member
I think it's a term Canikon fanboys made up after they found E-mount lenses were better than theirs, and they have no other evidence to criticize them.
I don't think so. I hear it mostly from Leica users. May be they use it to justify why they paid 2-3 times more for their lenses ?

Back in film times, I could easily see the difference between the Contax G 45mm F2 and the Leica 50mm Summilux : the first is incredibly sharp with lots of microcontrast and global contrast, while the second has a wonderful soft bokey. The Zeiss lens was criticized at the time for its busy bokey. But the 55mm FE clinical ? It has both an incredible sharpness and microcontrast plus a soft bokey : the best of both world. Why people pretends it is clinical, I just can't understand.
On the A7r it beats the Zeiss 45mm F2.0 for sharpness and it easily beats the Summilux which was a great deception for its very bad corners, even when closed down to 5.6 and more. But it has a much better bokey than the Zeiss 45mm F2. At the time, I got the Summilux rather than a Sumarit or Sumicron because I already had a sharp lens. With the 55mm FE, I don't need two lenses to get both sharpness and smooth bokey.

I wonder how the 50mm Summilux would perform on the BSI sensor of the A7r2 ? (I have put both it and the 90mm F2.0 on sale in order to get the Batis 25mm)
 

jaree

Member
I've seen this criticism(?) in many posts and in many forums regarding lens IQ.

does this mean it's TOO perfect? It doesn't have the tiny, unquanitfiable flaws that lesser (better) lenses have?
Yes, all it means that the lens is too good for person using it. Putting a bit of vaseline on the front element can bring character back to a clinical lens.
 

uhoh7

New member
Think of the Contax 45/2

Incredible landscape lens but you have to be very careful with faces and backgrounds.

I'd have to study more portraits using the 55/1.8 to put the "clinical" badge on it, but that's nearly always the context.

The 28 cron is magic on the M9, but goes seriously clinical on the 240, I think Ron would agree.

When you start to be distracted by pores, you are getting into clinical territory. LOL

I think it's a term Canikon fanboys made up after they found E-mount lenses were better than theirs, and they have no other evidence to criticize them.
Oh, meow. ;)

I tell you, something like the 50/1 would be a pleasure in E mount. And when it comes to zooms, though the 1635 is good, overall they are far ahead, still.

No fast constant aperture zooms after two years, for a camera which costs more than the Canikons? To put up with that without a peep: that's a fan :) Sony has learned you cram enough MP in the sensor, or get the ISO performance really up there, many people are willing to ignore just about anything LOL

Uhoh, now I'm in trouble :)
 

k-hawinkler

Well-known member
I don't think so. I hear it mostly from Leica users. May be they use it to justify why they paid 2-3 times more for their lenses ?

Back in film times, I could easily see the difference between the Contax G 45mm F2 and the Leica 50mm Summilux : the first is incredibly sharp with lots of microcontrast and global contrast, while the second has a wonderful soft bokey. The Zeiss lens was criticized at the time for its busy bokey. But the 55mm FE clinical ? It has both an incredible sharpness and microcontrast plus a soft bokey : the best of both world. Why people pretends it is clinical, I just can't understand.
On the A7r it beats the Zeiss 45mm F2.0 for sharpness and it easily beats the Summilux which was a great deception for its very bad corners, even when closed down to 5.6 and more. But it has a much better bokey than the Zeiss 45mm F2. At the time, I got the Summilux rather than a Sumarit or Sumicron because I already had a sharp lens. With the 55mm FE, I don't need two lenses to get both sharpness and smooth bokey.

I wonder how the 50mm Summilux would perform on the BSI sensor of the A7r2 ? (I have put both it and the 90mm F2.0 on sale in order to get the Batis 25mm)

Thanks Annna, have a look here: http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1392833
Both those lenses certainly were tested on the A7II.mod IIRC.
 

turtle

New member
'Clinical' does mean something and can be ascribed to some lenses. It simply means 'well corrected'. I am no optics expert, but in such a lens there is unlikely to be much by way of uncorrected spherical aberrations, which are responsible for 'glowy' lenses and I also understand can be associated with very pleasing out of focus areas. It may also mean vignetting is well corrected, limited CA and that resolution is very high across the field, with uniformly high contrast.

If you think though the above, it explains why a Sony Zeiss 55mm f1.8 produces a look that is very different to a pre-asph leica 50mm Summilux.... or a Canon 50mm f1.2L.

In subjective terms, I tend to associate very well corrected lenses with 'clinical', because they produce results that are very clean looking... resolution is darned good everywhere, as is macro and microcontrast, there is unlikely to be much tendency towards flare, colour is rich... all from fairly wide open. The result is a look that suits some subjects but may not be desirable for others. I think most people would agree that most people (most of the time) probably want a 'clinical' lens for urban architectural work (tho by no means all the time), whereas for female portraits, a less agressive look is often desirable, with a fall off in resolution at the periphery, a tiny bit of glow wide open etc. Clinical lenses can look rather like a scientific scan of the subject and provide too much information in too perfect a manner.

Personally, I feel some lenses are becoming too perfect and shots from the super high resolution 90mm Sony G for the FE mount is a good example. Detail and microcontrast are on steroids. There is no grace to the image. Yes, you can inject 'imperfection' during PP, but the more perfect a lens is the harder it can be to produce finished images that lack the inherent aggressiveness in the lens.

So in summary, I don't think it is in people's heads at all and an optics wizard would be able to explain all of this much better than I can. Some people split hairs and fixate over nuances, for sure, but go shoot a 35mm Summaron on a Leica Monochrom and then a 35mm Biogon-C and try to argue that the word clinical does not fit one lens a lot better than the other.... or try a Canon 50mm f1.4 FD on a Sony A7 at f1.8 and compare it to the Sony 55mm f1.8.

FWIW, I think the 55mm FE is 'somewhat' clinical for people shots, but not entirely so. Wide open, it may have remarkable resolution and contrast, but the bokeh is pretty good (so lets call that 66.667% clinical!). By f2.8 my copy far exceeds the performance of many lenses at f8. I like it for landscape work, but would not really appreciate it for street photography or people. For human beings, the Canon 50mm f1.2 is, IMHO a far superior lens for my purposes, even with both at f1.8. And yes, Sony/Zeiss are making some astonishing lenses, but Canon has produced some absolute crackers in the last 3-4 years. The most impressive Sony FE lens of late (for me) is the 85mm Batis, because it manages to strike a good balance between technical performance and a look that suits people at wide apertures. That's no easy feat, but Zeiss clearly recognised that their objectives were different with this lens than, say the 90mm Sony G.
 
Last edited:

Annna T

Active member
'Clinical' does mean something and can be ascribed to some lenses. It simply means 'well corrected'. I am no optics expert, but in such a lens there is unlikely to be much by way of uncorrected spherical aberrations, which are responsible for 'glowy' lenses and I also understand can be associated with very pleasing out of focus areas. It may also mean vignetting is well corrected, limited CA and that resolution is very high across the field, with uniformly high contrast.

If you think though the above, it explains why a Sony Zeiss 55mm f1.8 produces a look that is very different to a pre-asph leica 50mm Summilux.... or a Canon 50mm f1.2L.

In subjective terms, I tend to associate very well corrected lenses with 'clinical', because they produce results that are very clean looking... resolution is darned good everywhere, as is macro and microcontrast, there is unlikely to be much tendency towards flare, colour is rich... all from fairly wide open. The result is a look that suits some subjects but may not be desirable for others. I think most people would agree that most people (most of the time) probably want a 'clinical' lens for urban architectural work (tho by no means all the time), whereas for female portraits, a less agressive look is often desirable, with a fall off in resolution at the periphery, a tiny bit of glow wide open etc. Clinical lenses can look rather like a scientific scan of the subject and provide too much information in too perfect a manner.

Personally, I feel some lenses are becoming too perfect and shots from the super high resolution 90mm Sony G for the FE mount is a good example. Detail and microcontrast are on steroids. There is no grace to the image. Yes, you can inject 'imperfection' during PP, but the more perfect a lens is the harder it can be to produce finished images that lack the inherent aggressiveness in the lens.

So in summary, I don't think it is in people's heads at all and an optics wizard would be able to explain all of this much better than I can. Some people split hairs and fixate over nuances, for sure, but go shoot a 35mm Summaron on a Leica Monochrom and then a 35mm Biogon-C and try to argue that the word clinical does not fit one lens a lot better than the other.... or try a Canon 50mm f1.4 FD on a Sony A7 at f1.8 and compare it to the Sony 55mm f1.8.

FWIW, I think the 55mm FE is 'somewhat' clinical for people shots, but not entirely so. Wide open, it may have remarkable resolution and contrast, but the bokeh is pretty good (so lets call that 66.667% clinical!). By f2.8 my copy far exceeds the performance of many lenses at f8. I like it for landscape work, but would not really appreciate it for street photography or people. For human beings, the Canon 50mm f1.2 is, IMHO a far superior lens for my purposes, even with both at f1.8. And yes, Sony/Zeiss are making some astonishing lenses, but Canon has produced some absolute crackers in the last 3-4 years. The most impressive Sony FE lens of late (for me) is the 85mm Batis, because it manages to strike a good balance between technical performance and a look that suits people at wide apertures. That's no easy feat, but Zeiss clearly recognised that their objectives were different with this lens than, say the 90mm Sony G.
I have no problem with your explanations, it is easy to agree about that : different horses for course. What I don't like is that the term "clinical" most of the time is used with quite a pejorative accent, next to "boring lens". And those who use this term are often looking down at other photographers and speak as if they were part of an exclusive photographers elite and those liking near perfect lens are just too stupid to get it.
 
V

Vivek

Guest
I have no problem with your explanations, it is easy to agree about that : different horses for course. What I don't like is that the term "clinical" most of the time is used with quite a pejorative accent, next to "boring lens". And those who use this term are often looking down at other photographers and speak as if they were part of an exclusive photographers elite and those liking near perfect lens are just too stupid to get it.
Don't read too much into any of these. ;) Most of the crap from old leica M lenses aren't even optical but the shiny RF coupling brass metal in them.

The "c" worded lens that I covet which has the most pleasing boket is the Sony 135/2.8 STF lens. :grin:
 

Knorp

Well-known member
I have no problem with your explanations, it is easy to agree about that : different horses for course. What I don't like is that the term "clinical" most of the time is used with quite a pejorative accent, next to "boring lens". And those who use this term are often looking down at other photographers and speak as if they were part of an exclusive photographers elite and those liking near perfect lens are just too stupid to get it.
I never liked the output from my Biogon 35/2. Boring ? Don't know, perhaps just too much in the face effect.
For a while I wondered why, till I learned it was just too clinical ...
Some say the APO 75/2 is too clinical, but I never agreed. In fact I find it a little gem (ask Mr. Slack).
Not being quite an elitist :rolleyes:, I never thought of others as too stupid who have another opinion.

All the best.

PS I'm going out now with my absolutely not too clinical Zuiko 55/1.2 ... :p
 

Guy Mancuso

Administrator, Instructor
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.
 
Top