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

[k-hawinkler]

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.

Thanks indeed! It seems to me you spell out the next level of detail.
Question: What do you consider the first order effect(s), what are the higher order ones? TIA.

 

[Guy Mancuso]

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.

Sounds good but I do wonder about the flat field curvature if that should be included

 

[k-hawinkler]

Well, I asked my last question in light of people using the term "Too clinical".
I don't think they object to having, quote: "flat field curvature + good to excellent sharpness"
It seems to me they object to: "good to excellent aberrations control"
No?

I certainly agree that

flat field curvature + good to excellent sharpness + good to excellent aberrations control

describes what I would expect in a state of the art lens.

 

[Vivek]

Well, I asked my last question in light of people using the term "Too clinical".
I don't think they object to having, quote: "flat field curvature + good to excellent sharpness"
It seems to me they object to: "good to excellent aberrations control"
No?

I think it is futile to define an offensive terminology which has no meaning whatsoever.

A few of my 85mm lenses (snapped with the 55/1.8- excellent lens ). All are great with excellent boket. Make use of the movements on the PC Nikkor and all the Mandler related arguments go out the window.

Untitled by Vivek Iyer, on Flickr

 

[iiiNelson]

Don't know if it's been mentioned but the sensor and resolution has an effect on perceived sharpness as well. Many lenses aren't up to resolving the newest sensors but even still a high resolution sensor can make any lens seem "sharper."

 

[k-hawinkler]

For me this was a useful exercise by putting terms used into sharper focus. :grin:
I learned a bit. Thanks again. :thumbs:

 

[hiepphotog]

Well, I asked my last question in light of people using the term "Too clinical".
I don't think they object to having, quote: "flat field curvature + good to excellent sharpness"
It seems to me they object to: "good to excellent aberrations control"
No?

I certainly agree that

flat field curvature + good to excellent sharpness + good to excellent aberrations control

describes what I would expect in a state of the art lens.

Aberrations is readily associated with that "Leica glow" that people refer about. However, it certainly does intermingle with sharpness; low aberrations would automatically boost contrast at all frequencies; I'm sure there is a way to selectively pick out a certain frequency to. However, without the additional flat field curvature, a lens can be viewed by many as a non-clinical lens. The most obvious example, IMO, is the Lux 50 ASPH. It might be considered to be more "sterile" than the non-ASPH (one of Mandler's favorites?), but you would offend a fellow Leica shooter if you call his Lux 50 ASPH "clinical" . This lens has a very noticeable mid-zone dip, and the curvature is inward toward the camera. This dip is responsible for most bokeh in the centre-framing paradigm in rangefinder.

This is from my observation, but I think the under-lining causes are these three. I have not seen a lens with low aberrations and has low sharpness as well, but I could be wrong. Or we can list some of the notorious "clinical" lenses and see what they have in common.

 

[dandrewk]

I agree with Vivek, the term has no meaning in this context, even though it is most often meant as a negative.

The ironic thing - there is no such thing as a "perfect" lens. All exhibit unique "flaws", some more than others . I suspect when someone says "lens is too clinical", they are simply saying "I don't like the imperfections of this lens", and then fail to describe exactly what they mean. Very unhelpful. It gets a bit annoying when these so-called critiques get parroted by others ("I've heard it's too clinical") and gets repeated so often that it becomes accepted as fact.

We might be running into experienced photographers who have lots of older lenses. Some of those lenses are favorites which have been used with great success and great memories. Along comes a "new kid" that is supposedly sharper, and with fewer distortions. Naturally, there will be resistance. I get that. We learn to love and embrace lens imperfections... just like we do with friends and family .

 

[thompsonkirk]

And maybe these will illustrate a compromise, a lens that can be either a 'fondler' or 'clinical.' I got it out because of the discussion in this thread.

They're not great pictures; juste quick shots of some architectural details inside a small Frank Lloyd Wright house that I visited this weekend.

They're taken with a 50mm Sonnar-C, which renders like a 'classic' lens at wide apertures but is sharp and contrasty at f8 (see the chair). You just have to avoid the middle apertures, because of focus shift!

Kirk

1. Clerestory:

View attachment 113356

2. Recurrent/echoing motif:

View attachment 113357

3. Illumination imbedded in fireplace (how do you change the bulbs?):

View attachment 113353

4. Chair (original furniture, curtains, and rugs designed by FLW):

View attachment 113355

5. External gate (painted red, of course):

View attachment 113354

Only the gate has been sharpened.

 

[JaapD]

Re “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.”

With product design it does not work like this. You can design for various kinds of specifications. It necessarily does not have to be on ultimate sharpness. It could also be on cost, vignetting, low chromatic abberations, etc. But also on Bokeh.

I think the Nikon 58mm is a good example here as this recent design is not developed for ultimate sharpness, more on a good blend of sufficient sharpness, vignetting and a very nice bokeh. Another example is with the Sigma ART lenses: ONLY designed for sharpness, at the expense of other image qualities such as bokeh.

 

[UHDR]

the first time i saw such description was probably back in early 2000s when nikon moving their manufacturing process away from lead-containing glass and start introducing nano-coating. 24-85 F2.8-4, 105mm micro, 60mm micro are some of them. so i dont think it's unique to recent sony lens.

 

[Mark Muse]

I do not have the 55 FE, nor I plan to buy it, but I feel some discomfort with some images I see. I would not use the term too clinical, I feel that these images are as artificial as most HDR images are.

Let me take a different angle. When the first CD player came out, I rushed to buy a few discs to replace the classical music releases I had. Well, I was less than overwhelmed. And I was not alone: lifeless, too analytical, etc. were the keywords. Sounds familiar? Bullshit, engineers said, this is a faithful reproduction and sampling is more than adequate, given that that nobody can hear frequencies higher than 20 kH. It turned out that engineers were wrong (as they often are; I know, I am a member of IEEE). Though very few can hear a pure tone at that frequency, sampling clips harmonics that we perceive even if they are way above 20KH. A few decades later, digital converters use oversampling to smooth the signal. Nice, but I found out many years ago that the way to go was to use Conrad Johnson tube amplifiers rather than solid state. Tubes smooth the signal.

So, in short, the perceptual aspects of listening to the music were ignored and the outcome was bad.
My question is: is the same thing happening to digital photography? Are we ignoring important perceptual aspects? B&W on film is way different from digital. Overdetailed color images are not as satisfactory as 4x5 transparencies. Or, at least this is my feeling. Personally I resorted to the analog of a tube amplifier, and I use old lenses (sometimes really old) and I often add grain.

This analogy with the transition to digital music is what immediately comes to my mind. Early digital was argued to be more revealing than vinyl but it was decidedly unmusical, not to mention that massed strings were unbearable. Well said ƒ64! I like my "glowy" lenses.

On the other hand I also like my Jeff Rowland electronics - solid state can be very good. I condition the digital signal pre DAC with a Meridian 518 DSP. Very musical. I expect that some day aspheric lens design will also mature to regain some of the richness that is now in the ditch.

 

[iiiNelson]

To add fire to the flame I personally find it more offensive when people make claims about something being a "real camera" or a camera for "real photographers." Who makes the delineation to decide what's a real camera or who is a real photographer? Do the real pictures I take on my "fake" or "toy" camera not make them pictures? Does your photographic history have to exceed 50 years to be considered "real?" I see the "Fun With..." threads in every sub forum which suggests that all cameras are real cameras but some prefer to use one or another for various reasons but I digress... The elitism is getting a little old for me these days although I've been guilty of it myself in subjective terms as it applies to optical qualities.

I think that's the point though - all claims can be caveated from a subjective standpoint. For instance many love the M240 but I upgraded my M9 to an A7 and A7R because I hated the color. That doesn't mean the M240 was terrible but it didn't fit into my plans as I found better options for me. Going back to Sony I HATE the 35/2.8 unapologetically for reason discussed previously but love the 35/1.4 that some others will refuse to try due to size. We all have to keep opinion in perspective for what it is. The 35 Sigma Art I owned was terribly clinical but is one of the best lenses I've ever used on any system to the point if I was still a Canon user I'd buy EVERY Sigma Art prime on reputation/performance alone.

Clinical doesn't have to have a negative connotation but more of description to the look it gives as many pointed out.

 

[dandrewk]

This analogy with the transition to digital music is what immediately comes to my mind. Early digital was argued to be more revealing than vinyl but it was decidedly unmusical, not to mention that massed strings were unbearable. Well said ƒ64! I like my "glowy" lenses.

On the other hand I also like my Jeff Rowland electronics - solid state can be very good. I condition the digital signal pre DAC with a Meridian 518 DSP. Very musical. I expect that some day aspheric lens design will also mature to regain some of the richness that is now in the ditch.

I'll have to disagree here, the analogy doesn't apply. Early CDs were terrible because most of them where "shovel-ware", where the record company took the analogue tapes, without remixing, and sampled at small rate, resulting in all sorts of quantizing and artificial sound. It wasn't an issue of digital music per se, but rather crappy digital music. The mass produced vinyl albums weren't very pleasing either.

Nowadays, recordings are all digital - from the original studio capture to the mixing and gold masters. The sampling rates have increased as well. However, a 32 kbps mp3 is still a 32 kbps mp3.

 

[Bob]

Too clinical is not about a lens at all, it is about its use.
A lens that renders something on image plane that is absolutely just like the subject may be too clinical for some subjects but not for others.
Older women, for example, prefer lenses that are far from clinical (think the new Petzval or the Lensbaby velvet 56)
Crime scene photos, well there is no such thing as too clinical.
I have heard some folks, particularly those who shoot a bunch of older lenses wide-open and prefer vignetting call anything without it too clinical.
-bob

 

[Mark Muse]

I'll have to disagree here, the analogy doesn't apply. Early CDs were terrible because most of them where "shovel-ware", where the record company took the analogue tapes, without remixing, and sampled at small rate, resulting in all sorts of quantizing and artificial sound. It wasn't an issue of digital music per se, but rather crappy digital music. The mass produced vinyl albums weren't very pleasing either.

Nowadays, recordings are all digital - from the original studio capture to the mixing and gold masters. The sampling rates have increased as well. However, a 32 kbps mp3 is still a 32 kbps mp3.

Not entirely true. Sure there were analog tape > CD conversions that were poorly done. But there were also a LOT of digital recordings that were poorly done as well. And god-awful they were too. What has changed is we learned how to do better digital recordings, proper conversions from analog tape to digital, and the technology (hardware and software) improved considerably. Likewise, CD playback (or any digital source) has improved very much over the years.

Lens design is always choices about where to compromise and by how much, based on the design goal. This is where the character comes from, be it the character we wish for or not.

 

[Lars]

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.

It still has a crappy bokeh. The 75 Summicron I mean.

 

[Vivek]

It still has a crappy bokeh. The 75 Summicron I mean.

Less crappy than any Nikkor i have come across.

 

[Lars]

Less crappy than any Nikkor i have come across.

You must of course refer to the 85/1.8D, worst Nikkor bokeh of all time?
It's of course subjective but to me the Leica is much worse. It's simply a failed lens design.

 

[uhoh7]

Less crappy than any Nikkor i have come across.

I'm delighted to contradict you: :salute:


Bo Peep by unoh7, on Flickr


Black Ears by unoh7, on Flickr

No Leica lens on earth has better bokeh than the nikkor 300/2.8 EDIF (yes I got a nice 75 Lux). It's legendary for this reason among several. :grin:

OK, Vivek, I confess I never even heard of the lens until a month ago But I read alot about it since and bought one (625 shipped). My shorter SLR nikkors have nasty bokeh. But I do enjoy the Nikkor RF bokeh from some lenses.

Well, some others might ask, is it "clinically sharp"?

ahem...

Formation by unoh7, Body: A7.mod

the 500/4 P might even be better bokeh. Meant to be sharper. If I was rich, I would get a Leica SL just for these two lenses.

PS, Matt, really superb portrait, #2, with 135/2 Zeiss